What a joke. She's for the little people, REALLY? This limousine liberal is at the head of the 1% class.

Since when is it wrong for [legitimately] making money? Brown makes $174,000 a year as a Senator, when the median US income is somewhere around $50k. Does that make him an elitist?

Gee. I wonder why higher education is so expensive...

"Elitist hypocrite" sounds about right. She will be hearing about this the whole campaign.

She wasn't always well off. She made good. And she's certainly no CEO making millions. Doesn't Scott Brown support executives making million dollar bonuses? Who's the hypocrite?

Lizzy Warren brags that she sympathizes with the little guy, that she mentored the Occupy mob, yet she is hoarding hundreds of thousands of dollars, and with hubby is worth $3 million or more. Why do I think Lizzy has a tin ear when it comes to hearing ordinary folks... Maybe we should all chime in and greet her as "Tin Lizzy".

You're right. An elitist is someone who considers themselves better than those in the lower income brackets. It all depends on who they fight for. A wealthy person concerned about the rest of us is no elitist. A good past example is Franklin Roosevelt. But one who primarily supports those with wealth could be so characterized. Warren is no elitist, but who does Scott Brown primarily support?

The points put forth are irrelevant. Warren makes money the old-fashioned way...she earns it. The opinions voiced so far against her are worthless. They have no basis in complete facts. She is the pre-eminent advocate for middle class Americans and has been for most of her life. If you doubt my reasons, please click on: http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ For a better view, click on: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/11/elizabeth-warren-201111 And this is why she was worth the money re: TARP as she hammers the Obama administration official, Geithner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6byQ I would expect that any poster be familiar, through links like those above, before jumping off a cliff into opinion. There is plenty to learn about Elizabeth Warren, including how much money a professor at Harvard makes per year! This is the short version of the Harvard professor since 1992: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren She is the anti-Brown. Nothing like him and if you have clicked the links above, she holds more promise based on what she has done than Brown, especially in the last two years. I'm leaving you with Senator Brown's Christmas present from 2010: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-12-02/news/27082931_1_benefits-extension-unemployment-benefits-scrooge

Stinger1: What, exactly, is a "complete fact?"

To answer your question: You might think Lizzy has a tin ear because your own hearing is impaired without you being aware of it. Obviously, you are not blind, so I am sending you a short link to tell you how clearly Elizabeth Warren "hears ordinary folks." http://janebryantquinn.com/2010/07/why-elizabeth-warren-should-head-the-new-consumer-protection-bureau/ I hope this answers your question.

I think they're grasping at straws. I could advocate for more funding for programs for the homeless even though I live in a house... that wouldn't make me a hypocrite.

Our country has a tradition of people with large fortunes (far more than E. Warren has) who nonetheless support and care about those less fortunate. Obvious examples are the Roosevelts and the Kennedys. This is one reason why I never resent the rich and well off. But I do resent the wealthy people who care only about further enriching themselves, with no concern for the rest of us.

And he earned $174 for the Senate gig, plus six-figures for his book advance. They're both rich, in my view. Now, let's get on with the issues.

@incredible1: My bad choice of phrase. I intended to play off the statement :" Her compensation includes $43,938 she earned as a consultant in 2010 for Travelers Insurance company for cases involving asbestos victims." against the intent of her involvement, which was meant to benefit the victims of the suit. "She also got $43,938 in consulting fees from Travelers Insurance on a legal case involving asbestos victims. Warren worked defending Travelers in a Supreme Court case involving a mining company that set up a trust fund for asbestos victims. Warren, a bankruptcy expert, argued that the insurance company should be protected from future lawsuits from victims because such suits would prevent similar trusts from being created, making it impossible for all victims to be paid. "Elizabeth served as a consultant and wanted to ensure that all victims got a fair shake and had an equal chance to get paid," Warren spokesman Kyle Sullivan said in a statement. "That is why she supported all insurance proceeds being put in a trust rather than fighting lawsuit-by-lawsuit until the money ran out." I apologize for the poor phrasing.

Scott Brown, working class hero. Yeah, right. What has Scott Brown done in the Senate, anyway? Has he proposed any bills or made any interesting speeches or anything? What's he waiting for? He's pulling down a pretty nice taxpayer-funded salary himself for not doing too much of anything.

So... let me get this straight: Warren earned $700,000 over two years in consulting fees while Brown earned $700,000 in one year writing a book, but Warren gets the big headline? So they both make lots of money, the real question is what they do with it. Warren may not be a part of the middle class, but she can still fight for us. Brown, on the other hand, is fighting for the elitists he is yelling about.

I'll stay out of who is a hypocrite and who is an elitist, and why college costs so much (e.g., her salary plus making kids buy the $100 text books she writes and gets royalties on). Could I just please get a clear explanation of the actual subject matter from the Boston Globe? Did Warren earn $700,000 over a two year period or over $1,000,000, the $700,000 mentioned plus the money from the government for working for Obama and Congress that inexplicably did not have to be counted. Why doesn't the government money get counted? And didn't she get dividends on all that stock? And why is it expressed as a two year total?

And how much did Mitt Romney make?

Warren takes money from a insurance company, double dips into government trough , gets a mega salary from Harvard ( we won't include husbands mega salary from Harvard) and lives in a multi million dollars house in communist Cambridge! Yet Warren portrays herself as a average working girl from the Midwest, working for the working class and poor! In Massachusetts you can be a hypocrite , as long as your a Liberal hypocrite. A lot of campaign fodder for Brown at least!

Warren is in disguise. She is really "Aunt Fannies Cookies" with her little, cute glasses hanging on the end of her nose. Poster image for a Senator. She will protect and defend citizens against all those nasty bankers who have contributed so proudly to her campaign. Welcome back to all the missing writers of the past "free" days before the Globe went for the internet penny jar. Esoteric comments that wander so far afield from the article abound. What does Romney have to do with anything? Who cares how Aunt Fannie made filled her cookie jar. The name of the real game in Massachusetts is "Roust the Republicans".

When you say "Senator Scott Brown's campaign said" who actually said that?

Smart businessmen give to both sides, at least for their public contributions. They never know for sure who's going to win. When it comes to anonymous pacs, though, that's unlikely. Tell me how having a lot of money makes you a hypocrite. Every politician who has been concerned about the middle and lower classes had a lot of money. It's not how much money someone has, it's what they do with their lives. Brown has had two years to show that he's more concerned with ordinary people like me, rather than those who are already wealthy. So far he's shown me nothing.